Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Edge browser] With URL.revokeObjectURL no message is received in the worker #26

Closed
ghost opened this issue May 23, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 23, 2016

V1.2.1 no longer working in Edge browser.
V1.2.0 works fine.

@anandthakker
Copy link
Collaborator

@cnsdato Thanks for the report. I guess maybe Edge is loading the worker source asynchronously? Not exactly sure. Ways we could deal with this:

  • Since there's now an options param, the revokeObjectURL behavior could be controlled by an option.
  • Since bare: true lets you do the object URL creation and Worker construction yourself, we could just remove the revokeObjectURL stuff from here, recommending instead that, where needed, people can do it themselves more safely by waiting until they've heard back from their worker before revoking.
  • We could stick a releaseURL function onto the worker before returning it, so that people can decide when to release the url without having to use the bare: true version of the api.

@substack preferences?

lucaswoj pushed a commit to mapbox/mapbox-gl-js that referenced this issue Jun 8, 2016
lucaswoj added a commit to mapbox/mapbox-gl-js that referenced this issue Jun 9, 2016
blanchg pushed a commit to blanchg/mapbox-gl-js that referenced this issue Jun 13, 2016
anandthakker pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 15, 2016
Reverts the change introduced by #16
Addresses #26
@anandthakker
Copy link
Collaborator

Going with (IMO) the simplest approach, which is to just attach objectURL to the returned worker so that user code can decide if/when to revoke it.

@anandthakker
Copy link
Collaborator

@cnsdato Just pushed what I believe should be a fix for this and published as 1.3.0. It would be great if you could confirm?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jun 16, 2016

@anandthakker Thanks for fixing this, I will give it a try in the next few days and will give you response on this.

Edit: looks good so far.

@mourner
Copy link
Collaborator

mourner commented Sep 7, 2016

This was fixed.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants